91–100 of 270 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wonder why they did not pick GitLab since it is significantly better for FOSS ideals and has the same niceness of GitHub
GitLab team member here. For anyone considering a similar move, I encourage you to check out our GitLab for Open Source program: https://about.gitlab.com/solutions/open-source/
"So in moving it to GitHub, we’re finding that a lot of things are just nicer because a large paid staff of engineers is working on it every day. And I grew up during the heydey of the Free Software Foundation, so I know this is a trap, but I’m tired and don’t have the energy to be a server admin for something that’s held together with scotch tape and prayers when I’m really supposed to be writing OpenGL code." This…
It seems to me people don't give enough thought to the possibility of hosting themselves elsewhere, and only "mirroring" onto GitHub for the presence effect. GCC does this (edit: LLVM half-does-it, in that issues are handled elsewhere). So does MonetDB and I'm sure there are a million more examples.
Actually LLVM has their official repository there, not a mirror as GCC[0]. But they still do reviews and merges outside of github. linux kernel project does a similar thing. [0] https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project
You can confirm this by reading one of the bot replies to a PR [0]:
Linux kernel development happens on mailing lists, rather than on GitHub - this GitHub repository is a read-only mirror that isn't used for accepting contributions. So that your change can become part of Linux, please email it to us as a patch.
[0] https://github.com/torvalds/linux/pull/805#issuecomment-5933...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, to ask again, what is a specific way that choosing Github and Microsoft can hurt a software project in the future? I'm not asking in bad faith here. If there are such dangerous I would very much like to know them.
SDL is a project with a long history, so let's pretend they move a backlog of 5,000 issues over to Github. Everything is great--now users can search, discuss, open, manage, etc. all these issues on a slick web UI. People are happy and things just work. Now some years later there's a blog post from Github, "An update to our free tier" that outlines dramatic changes. It turns out Microsoft needs to make some changes to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems to be popular at Facebook.[1] Where I work Mercurial has been an option for some time now (no Git unfortunately) and coming from Git I must say I really love how it does some of its things: - hg split: split a commit into as many different commits as you like using an interactive patch editor (you can fold/collapse hunks, can edit them textually, can select which lines of the hunk should be applied). It will au…
What's the other options besides hg if it ain't git?
Pijul is very promising: https://pijul.org/ and https://pijul.org/manual/why_pijul.html
Merging A in B should yield the same result as the opposite with Pijul, etc.
I've worked on SDL although I haven't contributed any code. Partly because it isn't convenient to contribute and partly because I felt that the work I did wasn't significant enough to merit jumping thru the hoops to contribute. The move to Github is a very welcomed change. > One reason we hadn’t considered a move to GitHub before now is that this project has had a policy of owning all its infrastructure. This is stil…
After Wayland support was added, I was trying to add support for running SDL apps inside the "fullscreen shell" style compositors (compositors meant to nest other compositors or run one application fullscreen).
This sounds like an indictment of git. It was supposed to make it easier for OSS developers to collaborate, but it turns out that you become bound to a monopoly like Microsoft. Why can't git users develop an easy to maintain server, like svn and fossil did, for example?
This is poignant for me, for reasons that have nothing to do with the technical merits of git vs mercurial, or github/Microsoft specifically as a company. > It’s not just Bugzilla. It’s the wiki, the mailing lists, the quaint little Mercurial web interface. The little open source thing that we rely on but no one is working on and probably has security holes in it. It’s all janky, and it causes developer friction. It…
You don't have to compete with hosted systems that have dedicated teams of developers and operations shipping features though. Linus Torvalds manages the development of the entire Linux kernel (millions of lines of code, thousands of contributors) with just an email client, text editor, and git CLI. I will say too don't expect these hosted services to free you of operations burden. On the contrary you're even less co…
I think you are unlikely to persuade them to change their minds with an argument in an HN comment, but you can keep trying!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had tried both in thier infancy, and honestly prefered mercurial by quite a bit. But git had the momentum. One thing I liked, that most do not is they had both git style branches in the form of tags, but mercurial had "real" branches.
Git branches and tags were independent features from the very start. It's true that branches were not stored in a separate directory, but that really wouldn't add much. There were tools to check out a branch into a separate working directory on the filesystem. And it was always straightforward to store branches in separate full repos too.
With git you can see this if you merge things back and forth then remove the branch names. There is no way to tell which commit was on was which branch. You just have the graph of commits.
This is not true of HG, it is always there baked into the history.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't have to compete with hosted systems that have dedicated teams of developers and operations shipping features though. Linus Torvalds manages the development of the entire Linux kernel (millions of lines of code, thousands of contributors) with just an email client, text editor, and git CLI. I will say too don't expect these hosted services to free you of operations burden. On the contrary you're even less co…
I mean that may be technically true but practically without something Github-like it's very difficult to make it work. If you started a FOSS project today with a mailing list wherein contributors mail you git patches, you would get exactly 0 contributors. And maybe that's ok, maybe this is your baby, and if someone wants to push code to it they can learn how to email a patch to you. But for many developers, they do w…
Oh, you'll get complaints, that much is very achievable. But actual contributions? Even simple, bullshit code boot camp homework exercises? Good luck.